...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Of course there were 'Horner' pharaohs
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [IMG]http://www.ephotobay.com/image/picture-27-135.png[/IMG] chart from Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian Foragers and Farmers. Pontus Skoglund (numbers and "Basal Eurasian" added-lioness) [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Of course for individuals all the numbers are possible since there was also "foreigners" in Ancient Egypt (think Hyksos for example). As well as their descendants of course. But in general, especially at the foundation stage, current genetic results on Ancient Egyptians (Ramses III=E1b1a, BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes), as well as other archaeological results (cultural continuity, biometric continuity affected by changes in lifestyle not migrants, etc) lead me to believe that they would be closer to say 5-6 on average. So basically Africans slightly admixed with neighboring Eurasians populations, but still mostly African as a whole. [/QUOTE]That sounds reasonable. Is there really an argument going on or is it spliittig hairs? A position at 5-6 would place dynastic Egyptians closer to the East African Nilotic Dinka people and further from Yoruba in comparison [IMG]http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/treemix.png[/IMG] ^^^ they are basically distinguishing three main types of African Pgymy, Bantu and Nilotic aka Mbuti, Yoruba, Dinka Now let's look at the DNA Tribes chart I carefully measured the distances and estimated how it would translate into the tree chart I believe have the sequence order correct. The result is a bit different. Enter the Khoisans. They seem to have have placed Khoisans closest to non-African It seems not to correspond to their other Basal Eurasian report unless Khosians occupied the horn at the time and were the Basal Eurasians. "Basal Eurasians" according to Razib Khan's interpretation of articles using this term are a ghost population with no living direct descendants DNA Tribes [IMG]http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y421/amunratheultimate2/Misc/GeneticDistancesBetweenPopulationsusingSNPsfromDNATribes2014_zps07329a43.jpg~original[/IMG] [URL=http://www.ephotobay.com/share/picture-28-149.html] [IMG]http://www.ephotobay.com/image/picture-28-149.png[/IMG][/URL] DNA Tribes [IMG]http://i61.tinypic.com/2hibewj.jpg[/IMG] So are Eurasians closer to Dinka or Khoisans ? Also we may have to switch the order of statements in certain situations If you say Egyptians are closer to Eurasians than bantu it implies back migration admixture. There might be some of that but if instead of saying "Egyptians were closer to" we instead say "Eurasians are closer to" then it excludes the admixture possibilities and could be interpreted as Africans existing first and Eurasians coming later Now if we look at that posiition 5 again from the treemix chart from the Skoglund article and we add DNA Tribes position for Khoisans. Then the ancient Egyptians are closer to Khoisans than any other African-am I not correct? Yet the DNA seems not to support this A lot of the articles we read don't dovetail with one another all the time [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3